Re: [DNA] CONSENSUS CALL : Document merges

[Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>]

> > As I mentioned earlier, I think option A is the more practical
> > option.
> 
> Can you clarify? Does more practical   mean "less work for the current authors", or does it mean something else?

Yes - it means "less work for the current authors ang the group". But, my intention is not to reduce work alone, I am just concerned that more work may lead to the work not getting done in a timely manner.

> Personally, I think we should go the route that makes the most sense
> for implementors who will be implementing from the RFCs, long after this WG goes away. Even if this is somewhat more work for the WG. 

I agree that we should do what makes the most sense for implementors. I am just not sure "option B" is that much more sensible compared to "option A", hence my  preference for "option A".

- Sathya

> 
> > > Option A:
> > > =========
> > > Combine
> > > 1) Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Networks (DNAv6)
> > > and
> > > 2) Tentative Options for Link-Layer Addresses in IPv6 
> Neighbour Discovery
> > > (draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00 + draft-ietf-dna-tentative-00)
> > >
> > > into one document.
> > >
> > > Merge
> > > 3) Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 - Best Current 
> Practices for
> > > hosts
> > > and
> > > 4) DNA with unmodified routers: Prefix list based approach
> > > (draft-ietf-dna-hosts-03 + draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02)
> 
> IMO, there should be one single document that tells implementors what
> to implement. I don't think it is helpful to have 2 different
> documents giving guidanace on this point. 
> 
> > > Option B:
> > > =========
> > >
> > > Merge all the above mentioned documents
> > >
> > > * draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00
> > > * draft-ietf-dna-tentative-00
> > > * draft-ietf-dna-hosts-03
> > > * draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02
> > >
> > > into a single document.
> 
> That would be my preference.
> 
> Thomasu
>